Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/8] drm/i915/gen9+: Program watermarks as a separate step during evasion

2016-11-01 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Op 20-10-16 om 23:57 schreef Matt Roper: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:28:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> Instead of running the watermark updates from the callbacks run >> them from a separate hook atomic_evade_watermarks. > The commit message here is a bit terse. I'd clarify that the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/8] drm/i915/gen9+: Program watermarks as a separate step during evasion

2016-10-24 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Op 20-10-16 om 20:35 schreef Matt Roper: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:28:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> Instead of running the watermark updates from the callbacks run >> them from a separate hook atomic_evade_watermarks. >> >> This also gets rid of the global skl_results, which was

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/8] drm/i915/gen9+: Program watermarks as a separate step during evasion

2016-10-20 Thread Matt Roper
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:28:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Instead of running the watermark updates from the callbacks run > them from a separate hook atomic_evade_watermarks. The commit message here is a bit terse. I'd clarify that the change we're making is that watermark register

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/8] drm/i915/gen9+: Program watermarks as a separate step during evasion

2016-10-20 Thread Matt Roper
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:28:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Instead of running the watermark updates from the callbacks run > them from a separate hook atomic_evade_watermarks. > > This also gets rid of the global skl_results, which was required for > keeping track of the current atomic

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/8] drm/i915/gen9+: Program watermarks as a separate step during evasion

2016-10-13 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Op 12-10-16 om 19:15 schreef Lyude: > Accidentally sent original view twice and found one more issue after > looking at the rest of them, sorry about that! > > On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 13:04 -0400, Lyude wrote: >> Loving this patch so far! Would it be possible to get this split into >> two separate

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/8] drm/i915/gen9+: Program watermarks as a separate step during evasion

2016-10-12 Thread Lyude
Accidentally sent original view twice and found one more issue after looking at the rest of them, sorry about that! On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 13:04 -0400, Lyude wrote: > Loving this patch so far! Would it be possible to get this split into > two separate patches though? One for removing skl_results

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/8] drm/i915/gen9+: Program watermarks as a separate step during evasion

2016-10-12 Thread Lyude
Loving this patch so far! Would it be possible to get this split into two separate patches though? One for removing skl_results and one for programming watermarks as a separate step. On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 15:28 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Instead of running the watermark updates from the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/8] drm/i915/gen9+: Program watermarks as a separate step during evasion

2016-10-12 Thread Lyude
Loving this patch so far! Would it be possible to get this split into two separate patches though? One for removing skl_results and one for programming watermarks as a separate step. On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 15:28 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Instead of running the watermark updates from the

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/8] drm/i915/gen9+: Program watermarks as a separate step during evasion

2016-10-12 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Instead of running the watermark updates from the callbacks run them from a separate hook atomic_evade_watermarks. This also gets rid of the global skl_results, which was required for keeping track of the current atomic commit. Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst